Searching for Ancient Truth

This appears to be a contradictory statement.First she admits that geologists did field work before assigning names to the geologic column and that all subsequent work is based on assumptions drawn from that field work. In fact, this is essentially true.Humans are very good at recognizing patterns and so when naturalists first started taking note of the fossils, they were seen to have a very specific pattern to them. Scientists also noted that the same fossils also occurred in the same or similar rock types, and rock types you can follow for miles and miles. Wherever they followed the rock units, the fossils occurred in the same order. Some fossils may have been missing or new ones found, or the geology was complicated by local tectonics, but the order of appearance did not change.Geologists from Europe met and discussed geology with those from the Americas and they found the same patterns. So the geologic column was created and established - and it is still being refined today.In the second half of the statement above, Faith accuses geologists of finding explanations to fit their 'preconceptions.' However, a preconception is an opinion or idea formed about something prior to having knowledge or experience about that something.And if that's what Faith means, then that does not seem to be the case with geology. There was a huge amount of knowledge gathered prior to construction of the geologic column and it was tested not only in Europe, but in the Americas, and then in other countries and continents. We're still testing it every single day and the reason it's still around is because it works. We can make predictions about the various aged rocks and the fossils found in them.For example, we know which ore deposits and hydrocarbons are more often and most likely found in which aged rocks, that black carbon- and base-metal-rich shales are often found in Cretaceous rocks, that banded iron formations are more common in Precambrian rocks, etc.These sorts of relationships have been recognized for many years and new ones are being recognized every year. So our assumptions are justified in our eyes, but I don't see how they can be called 'preconceptions' based on the amount of work that has gone into geology in the last 300+ years.That would be like telling people it's wrong to assume the sun will rise every morning even though it's been doing so for 10,000 to 4.5 billion years.I don't have a clue what Creationists consider testable, but I have a feeling it requires someone physically being there and seeing it (geology, etc.) happen with their own eyes.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-08-2006 10:43 PM

In the OP, I was specifically referring to the early scientists who constructed the geologic timescale, not scientists today.

lolDon't kid yourself, I don't normally read your posts either, except when they happen to occur in threads I'm intersted in. In this case, I felt it was necessary to point out your original comments were about the early scientists who constructed the geologic timescale, not any scientists on this board.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-09-2006 07:12 PM

Yes, I'm sorry, i did misunderstand your use of 'field.' What exactly is "mere speculation" about mapping out the rock units, identifying the fossils, and then correlating the resultant stratigraphy/ies across Europe and then the entire globe?The 'ages' were relative when the column was first constructed - 'these fossils are always older than these fossil, therefore in our column we will show that relationship.'The names assigned to various stratigraphic assemblages reflect the location of well-known discrete fossil assemblages or specific/important characteristics - Jurassic for the Jura Mountains, and Carboniferous for the prodigious amount of coal found in those rocks.Subsequent to assigning names to eras, periods, etc., the same name was given to any other sections of rock found to have the same fossil assemblages in other parts of the world.Are the rocks themselves always the same? No.Are the same fossils found everywhere and/or on each continent? No.If marine sediment from a certain time period was not being deposited in Germany because it was in the central portion of the continent at that time, then marine fossils associated with that time period will be missing. However, terrestrial fossils may be present and those correlated to other parts of the world. If organisms died due to suffocation IN the sediment, then we would not find evidence of teeth marks on fossilized skeletons, or even large dinosaur teeth embedded in fossilized skeletons, and we would find more evidence of fur, hair, feathers, skin, etc.The problem is that for the most part, the rocks are devoid of fossils. Only in certain locations or rocks can we find fossils. If we found fossils everywhere, more kids would be out looking for them. Fossil preservation is imperfect because of preservation bias. Soft parts are rarely preserved, bony parts and teeth better preserved. We often find shark teeth, but few sharks. This would be different if all the sharks died and were buried quickly.Marine rocks contain more fossils simply because the ocean is capable of accomodating a large amount of life within a small area. Compared to a jungle, a desert is lifeless - unless you know where to look. This happens in the ocean as well. The near shore environment has much more life than the deep sea. We see this today and it's indicated in the rock record as well.What happens in marine rocks that you often get condensed sections. In the deep marine setting or when the surface area of the ocean increases (especially in carbonate settings), less sediment is deposited. This can result in a concentration of fossils. Similarly, if clastic (sand silt) input significantly increases, mass death can occur, also resulting in a large accumulation of fossils. Usually, people find a fossil here and there, some fish scales, a fish bone, some burrows, parts of carbonized plant remains, a shark tooth, etc., and then an oyster colony. But the ocean is different than the surficial environment. What is getting jumbled in the ocean? What is going to affect the ocean floor 10,000 feet below the surface? Not even tsunamis reach the ocean floor. Old Earth theory explains it very well in terms of sequence stratigraphy, which models changing sea levels and depositional environments over time.

Yes, it's accepted because we have found no reason to reject it. However, the column of today is not the column of 1800. Even today it is being changed and refined to fit new data.

Faith, the work we do in the field is what leads us to our theories.Once the early naturalists were able to construct a column based on the order of fossils in the rocks, which you don't seem to have a problem with, it was later noted that the fossils changed not only vertically, but also laterally; and these changes were tied to subtle or significant changes in the rocks as well. Different types of rocks contained different types and varieties of fossils.Say you're standing on a beach in Australia looking out towards the Great Barrier Reef and the open ocean. You are standing on a sandy beach, but if you walk into the water far enough, the sand changes to carbonate and you will eventually reach the reef - full of marine life of all types. If you kept walking, however, you'd be in water over your head and you would eventually reach the portion of the ocean where shale is being deposited. These sediments are all being deposits contemporaneously - the beach sands, the carbonate, and the shale. Each one of these environments contains organisms that have adapted to life on a beach (clams, insects, plants, etc.), to a carbonate system (coral, fish, clams, starfish, gastropods, plant life, etc.), and to a shale environment (sharks, squid, different bivalves, ammonites, burrowers, etc.). While some marine life can cross into different ecological systems, some do not. Coral reefs are restricted to certain environments based on water depth, temperature, and clarity.These are the same relationships the early naturalists found in the rocks. Shales contained fossils resembling modern fossils found in deeper sea environments, limestones had fossils similar to those found in modern carbonate settings, and adjacent sandstones (found interfingering with limestone),were found to contain fossils similar to those found on modern beach environments. These observations clearly indicated (and hence our interpretations that you don't like) that the rocks represented various depositional settings. Mapping out the aerial extent of these various rock units (i.e., shale, limestone, beach sands, etc.) produced maps that looked exactly like modern coastal settings, replete with coastal swamps (coal deposits), volcanoes (supplied the ash layers often found in shallow continental sea deposits), alluvial and fluvial (stream) systems, etc.This is how we moved away from the flood theory. You cannot have various depositional settings during a global flood. Everything gets mixed together and homogenized and order is lost. The problem for you is that throughout the entire geologic column, there is ample evidence that large portions of the globe were underwater at the same time others were subaerial. In addition, the stratigraphic column is not complete except in a few places around the world, which conflicts with what would be expected if the strata were all deposited in one global event. This, along with the evidence of depositional settings (and many other things), tells us 'time periods' or paleolandscapes were an important part of this earth's geologic history and therefore difficult to explain via a flood interpretation. The point is, Faith, that it's a plausible explanation because it makes 'sense.' It makes sense once we are made aware of the details.The fact is teeth marks and teeth embedded in complete fossil skeletons would not be possible during a flood. Teeth marks indicate the skeleton was stripped of flesh (eaten) and skeletons stripped of flesh cannot remain intact during a deluge of Noachic proportions. They would be scattered within days of heavy rains and flooding. In addition, we also find intact dinosaur nests. The amount of rain necessary to erode the continents and to form the geologic column, would wipe out something as fragile as nests and fleshless skeletons. It is sensible to assume that. My replies are directed to this statement of yours (which, it turns out, I don't fully understand): If all the organisms died at one time, why are they spread out over the entire column which is thousands and thousands of feet thick? This doesn't make sense in anyway. Hydraulic sorting does not sort on morphological characteristics as far as I know.The reason there are so many marine fossils in the rock record has to do with the 1) most of the world is covered by water and always has been, 2) marine settings are extremely rich in life especially carbonate systems, 3) carbonate settings are most often located adjacent to continents, and 4) marine settings are particularly conducive to fossil preservation. Therefore, it's no surprise that a large portion of the rock record is composed of marine rocks and fossils and so this line of evidence is not necessarily indicative of a flood. I'm not sure what in my statement above suggests I think ALL strata are marine. All I said was that the ocean is a calm and stable environment that allows sediment to slowly deposit over a long period of time. Where things become jumbled and complex is near the coasts (where sea level changes affect the most change in the way of depositional systems), and on the continents where weathering, erosion, and tectonics reign supreme. The marine setting is not affected significantly by tectonics, erosion, or sea level changes, but it is affected by climate. Not "jerryrigged," though certainly complex. A complicated concept that beautifully (and elegantly!!) explains the complexity of the geologic record.